Comments on: Could the Cloud Derail A $300M Data Center?

By: RSP

RSP — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:40:46 +0000

Given the disparity between Cloud provider technical excellence and public sector lower skill, inherent scalability and availability of Cloud services and the cost of on-premise infrastructure the decision to spend $300M on a state run data center should be questioned.

By: Data Centers: Could the Cloud Derail A $300M Data Center? | Black Swan Blog

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:04:50 +0000

[...] [www.datacenterknowledge.com] Share This Article: [...]

By: Online Storage Optimization » Blog Archive » It’s Getting Cloudy up There

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:50:21 +0000

[...] reminds me of this article from “The Onion,” but I digress.) Earlier this week, we read a report that a couple of Washington state legislators are attempting to derail a potential plan for a $300 [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:33:41 +0000

I do not believe cloud computing would be the best solution for such a large and vast implementation, but I HIGHLY disagree with building a 160,000sq ft data center in such a high natural risk area. Have they ever heard of Eastern Washington?

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:19:36 +0000

This really isn’t even a question of cloud vs build your own. The real puzzling question and issue in my mind is why a State Government would put tax payer dollars into such an expensive facility that is located in one of the worst natural disaster zones in the United States.

This is nothing more than a government body trying to build it’s own empire while knowingly ignoring that it could someday easily end up in a heap of rubble from an earthquake. Even if they build a supposed “earthquake resistant” data center will their connectivity survive a local or regional event?

By: Jo

Jo — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:45:15 +0000

Interesting story. I am writing an ebook about companies that have used cloud services as well as those that have decided not to. I’d be interested to hear from any IT managers on this topic. Cheers, Jo (jmaitland@techtarget.com).

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:00:57 +0000

I can’t imagine those state legislators having even the VAGUEST idea what specifically is going to be put in that data center

You got that right. $300M for a colo facility? Why not just rent out space from existing colos like everyone else does?

Then they can move forward and realize that they don’t have to hire people that live in the Olympia area and branch out to other places in the state.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:23:40 +0000

Having worked for the State of Washington, and in the IS field, I can tell you that the quality of those IT workers is substantially below that of the commercial industry. Mainly, it is the 25-30% less pay that the State IT workers receive. Anyone with a decent skillset uses the State Employment as a resume builder, then migrates north to Seattle/Bellevue/Redmond to get a “real” IT job, along with the benefits (Stock, Bonuses, higher base). What you are left with is the less motivated IT worker (in general) and state services reflect that.

Don’t think for a second that your private data is any safer being housed in state run facilities. Security isn’t that good (compared to what I’ve seen at say, Microsoft)

By: nate

nate — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:57:38 +0000

Just what we need, politicians trying to influence IT. I can’t imagine those state legislators having even the VAGUEST idea what specifically is going to be put in that data center, and if there’s even a REMOTE possibility of putting it “the cloud”(and having it actually work). Especially the Amazon or Microsoft clouds which are extremely limited in their abilities.

It’s scary that this cloud talk seems to make people like this blindly think “oh yeah just put it in the cloud!”

Even for my company’s small scale(few hundred systems), we ran the numbers for a basic setup in the Amazon cloud, as well as Terremark, and even managed hosting, and it was waaaaaaaay cheaper to do it ourselves, not to mention the added agility we get with our own gear. Cloud setups are fairly rigid in what they will support. Amazon was something like 3x more costly, Terremark maybe 5-6x(I’m sure most of their costs are VMWare licenses), and managed hosting was about the same as Terremark.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:38:14 +0000

This is idiotic. Politicians are pushing something that they don’t even understand what it does. Not even taking into consideration that any business from amazon or microsoft is a bad idea.